Co-Op Democracy
By STEPHEN FAY MR. JOHN STONEHOUSE's bid to weaken the power of the majority on the management committee of the London Co-operative Society has failed miserably. The 1960 Committee, one of three parties on the fifteen-man committee, easily held the five seats which were up for re- election this year. Mr. Stonehouse, who is the sixteenth man on the committee as president of the Society, now seems to be fighting a battle for his own survival.
But why has there been so much fuss about a Co-operative election? The superficial reason is that Mr. Stonehouse called in public-relations men to help him engineer the fuss. Press cow ferences were held; quiet lunches, discreet phone calls and confidential background information were given to any journalist who showed some interest in the affairs of the Society. The main reason for their interest was that three Con1- munists were among the five men re-elected to the committee in last week's elections.
The scare was magnified by the release of figures which allegedly demonstrated a serious decline in the trading position of the Co-011 Mr. J. C, McGrath, the Society's chief ac- countant, was quoted as questioning its abilitY to remain solvent unless crisis measures were taken to cut expenditure; later as saying that the I.ondon Co-op. is one of the most impreg- nable financial institutions he has come across.
Confusion by this time was complete.
The truth almost certainly lies somewhere 'Eating people is wrong.' .between the conflicting statements of the two parties in dispute. Certainly there is a Com- munist threat to the London Co-op. But the Communists do not run it. Three of the ten 1960 Committee men on the management com- mittee are Communists. The Party does send its members out to vote in relatively large numbers (it is estimated that about 20 per cent of the 15,617 voters—a minute proportion of the total membership—in last week's election are Corn- munists). Unless something is done to combat the electoral power of the Party, it could insinuate itself into a position of annoying minority power. But it is unlikely to be able to utilise this, or any other Co-op., successfully to fight the class war in the High Street. Capitalism will see to that, without really exerting itself. Large amounts of Co-op. business are being lost to the supermarkets. This is reflected in the rapidly declining profits of the London Co-op. In 1957 they were £2,236,658; last year, £90,756; this Year, Mr. Stonehouse claims, they will be even lower, if they are to exist at all. Meanwhile the politicians fight as the Society declines. And in doing so they demonstrate the sad failure of co- operative democracy in the middle of the twen- tieth century. There are too many people trying to cut retail prices—doing much the same thing as the Roch- dale pioneers did one hundred years ago._ The large chains and supermarkets cut prices by reducing overheads, not by giving dividends, but the result is much the same. In this atmosphere of harsh commercial competition the profes- sionals will beat the amateurs, even if the amateurs are professional politicians. Party Politics has no place in the board room of a large retail organisation, or any other business for that matter. So co-operative democracy can °n1Y work really effectively when its retail out- lets have a virtual monopoly, as they did before the advent of the supermarket. Now the time has me for them to hand over to the pro- fessionals, if the large investment of the mem- bers is to be justified (so large are the assets of the London Co-op. that insolvency seems unlikely): a conclusion which most other groups of shareholders would surely have reached long' ago.
Previous page
